LEGAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Atty. Luis Warren

FROM: Jon Wilson J. Tee
DATE: October 26, 2019
Re: Constitutionality of Superhuman Registration Act
___________________________________________________________________________

Statement of Facts

A group of teenagers who took the law and found it upon themselves to act and bring down
prominent criminals, which in turn caused damages, injuries, and even death. Subsequently
after sparked the current controversy of a law regulating the activity and registration of
metahumans for the general welfare and safety of all the people.

Issues

Assailing the Constitutionality of The Superhuman Registration Act, wherein metahumans

are required to disclose their information to the Government and the prohibition of using their
abilities unless accorded by law.

The enacted law would be unconstitutional because it would be violative of the equal
protection clause and following the strict scrutiny test, there would be no compelling state
interest to justify the enactment of said law as the least intrusive means was not used as there
would be undue curtailment use of abilities, especially in times of great need or danger and
because it would require all metahumans not classifying whether they are engaged or not in
such acts to be prohibited.

Discussions

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause

The equal protection clause can be violated when the 4 requisites are not accomplished. As
held in Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City

“A classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on substantial distinctions which

make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification
applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially
identical to those of the present; (4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the
same class.”1

In the enactment of The Superhuman Registration Act it is clear that the fourth requisite is
lacking because they classify those metahumans who use their abilities and metahumans who
do not use their abilities regularly or for other purposes such as crime fighting would be
required to give their personal information to the government. If the goal of the law is to
lessen the effects of vigilante acts that cause damage and injury to the people at large, then it
follows to reason that only those metahumans that engage in such vigilante acts should be the

1 (Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794, [February 17, 1968], 130
PHIL 595-599)
only scope of the law. In classifying “all metahumans” to be included in the scope of the law,
whether or not they engage in the activities prohibited by the law, would be an undue
interference in their vested rights to privacy as they are still required for registration even
though they do not pose a threat to society.

Strict Scrutiny

It is held in White Light Corporation v. City of Manila that:

“Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than
substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving
that interest.”2

In following the procedures that the law entails, metahumans would not have the freedom to
use their abilities, especially in times of emergency or danger as the requirement of an
approval of the governing board must be secured prior and are not prohibited to assist law
enforcement or act as first responders unless they are duly deputized by the corresponding
law enforcement or government agency. As there are both sides, there would also be
metahumans who would use their abilities for crime, in the event that the evil doers are
wreaking havoc, action would be stalled and more lives may be lost, in turn what the law
verily wants to accomplish and prevent may not be attained and may even result to disastrous
implications. It is clear that the less restrictive means for achieving the state interest is not
used, as was stated before in violation of equal protection clause they also unduly hamper the
rights of metahumans who do not use their abilities for the purposes contemplated by the law
by requiring them to disclose their personal information and have them be known as a
metahuman against their right enshrined in Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution to
wit:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”3

Also because it denies swift and immediate action when necessity requires, which may be
costly and endanger the lives of many. To prevent the metahumans who would protect the
people because of some procedural requirements would be dangerous and would have further
chilling effect if passed.

Recommendation

2 (White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, [January 20, 2009], 596 PHIL 444-472)
3 Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
It would be more reasonable that those who cause great danger or damage to people or
property would be the only one who would be sanctioned by the law. As there are responsible
metahumans who know the limitations of their abilities and use it proper, they should not be
hindered in doing what they do, as these are merely public servants who ask nothing in return
but protect the people at large. The would be violators who are reckless in the use of their
abilities are the only ones the government should take their information for purposes of
regulation. In turn this will still achieve the interest of the state of protecting the people by
having metahumans practice their abilities with more caution and care as there would be
penalties if they do not responsibly use their abilities and those who properly or responsibly
use their abilities will be allowed to use them accordingly without causing damage or injury
to others and also protect our society as well.